As readers of the TeamPyro blog know, I gave a rather ringing endorsement of Jim Belcher’s recent book Deep Church, and had the privilege of talking with Jim about his book on the Paul Edwards show God and Culture that same week.
A lot of people thought my endorsement was a little shallow, and not much of a review. However, I did link to the gully-washing review by Kevin DeYoung in my endorsement, and said that there’s not much left to be said after Kevin’s 10 pages of summary and analysis.
But our friends at 9Marks.org have now reviewed the book (which weighs in at 3 pages — only slightly longer than my endorsement), and they have panned the book. Here’s the short version of what Greg Gilbert said:
When you can get both Tim Keller and Rob Bell to endorse your book, you’ve really done something extraordinary. Especially for a “third way” book that claims to cut a middle path between two warring camps, getting a couple of generals from either side to meet on your cover and shake hands for the cameras is a real diplomatic coup—a symbol that maybe, finally, you’ve managed to broker a settlement that will issue in a lasting peace.I just don’t think it’s going to work, though.
I hate to be so short about it, but that’s really my considered judgment after reading and thinking about Jim Belcher’s call in Deep Church for traditional evangelicals and the emergent church to “work together to build evangelicalism.” Frankly, I’m surprised that Belcher, after seeing what his research brought to light, decided to press on with the idea that emergents and traditionals could reunite somehow.
Now, Greg goes through his argument regarding why he doesn’t think it’s going to work, so what we shouldn’t do here is sort of pan Greg for his opinion. I actually think he’s right that the Nicean definition of “church” is not enough to unify the ends of the spectrum lined our between D.A. Carson and Brian McLaren. It’s not robust enough to satisfy the historical context of the conservative end, and it’s far too robust to correct the revisionist end — they are simply too far gone.
So if I agree with Greg’s central point, what’s the beef?
As I read Greg’s review, I think somehow he has read a different book than I have. I think he has missed the point of Jim’s book almost entirely — because it seems to me that, in spite of (and in many ways because of) the sort of detached treatment Jim gives both sides of the “Emerg*” / “Tradional” divide, his conclusions are clearly weighed toward the truly traditional Protestant church which should be asking the questions the Emerg* folks are asking but should also be coming up with answers grounded in Scripture and reflected upon in light of our traditions, including the ecumenical creeds.
As I said on Paul’s show, the book is best summed up this way:
[1] There is something wrong with the English-speaking church.
[2] There are fair criticisms of the church.
[3] There are faithful solutions to those questions.
The idea that there is a “third way” as lined out by Jim is really an argumentative device to draw in those who are very concerned with conversation and a dialog in which they get to say their piece in toto and perhaps ad nauseam. In his book, Jim gives the talkers as much space as is necessary to get all of their cards on the table, and then some — and then demonstrates why, while their questions may be valid, their answers need some corrections in light of the orthodox expressions of the faith.
Greg Gilbert missed this almost entirely by framing his review of the book around his opinion that “it won’t work” to reconcile the two sides. I think that problem makes his review a lot less helpful than it needs to be. Deep Church will be broadly helpful to so many people who are in the middle of this divide in clearing up their own understanding of the problems in Evangelicalism because it is not a centrally-polemic book. It is centrally a pastoral book for the sake of those who ought to be inside the body of Christ rather than out on their own trying to invent something that seems right in their own eyes.
UPDATED: Jim Belcher explains why he would disgaree with Greg @ 9Marks, as told to Trevin Wax. Well worth your time and effort.
Related posts:
November 4th, 2009 | 11:44 am | #1
Well said, Frank. I’m embarrassed for Greg and 9 Marks for this hack review. They need to take it down.
November 4th, 2009 | 12:10 pm | #2
Yes, well said, Frank.
Steve: At first glance, the review has enough misunderstanding/straw-man that I’d indict it as a “hack” review. I’ll hold off on the conviction.
November 4th, 2009 | 12:16 pm | #3
But what will Belcher do about that goatee? Yikes.
November 4th, 2009 | 12:18 pm | #4
Everybody goose-eggs once in a while. (Except Tom Ascol)
I think Greg would be well-served to re-read the book as a review of the options rather than a strict prescription for the right solution. And I think Greg also ought to be a little more generous when looking at the ecumenical creeds — ESPECIALLY since the T4G guys have a sort of unifying confessional statement.
What I’d like to see him do, really, is say something like, “well, there’s nothing new in this book,” or “it’s not very helpful,” or “I recommend it in spite of its flaws,” but the way the review is written right now it sort of just turns the reader away from the book because of a baptist bias.
As we say in the low-brow reformed blogosphere, “pheh.”
November 4th, 2009 | 12:37 pm | #5
To look at a specific problem in Gilbert’s review, on the atonement:
It’s as though Gilbert thinks that McClaren stands in for the entire Emerg* crowd on the atonement. Which is something Belcher is careful to deny.
The point is that anyone who does reduce penal substitution out of the gospel really does have fundamental problems. Belcher’s solution includes a full-orbed articulation of the validity in all the atonement models (Christus Victor, Christus Exemplar, etc) along with penal substitution.
Belcher’s problem is that he tries too hard to cast it as a “third way”. That brings on some of the confusion & misunderstanding, because the “third way” here is solidly in the “traditional” camp. And it’s also solidly in the Emerg* camp–at least, much of the camp, who have not challenged penal substitution. At their best, the emergers are asking for clear articulation of all the facets of the atonement; some de-emphasize penal substitution dangerously; some deny it outright. At their best, traditionals clearly articulate all the facets of the atonement; some unhelpfully focus exclusively on penal substitution. (Some may deny the other facets outright; I haven’t heard of it, though.)
Those are the grounds for unity between emergers & traditionals–the common ground of clear articulation of all facets of the atonement. “Third way” doesn’t describe it well, but the grounds are there.
November 4th, 2009 | 12:42 pm | #6
By the way, that’s why I wouldn’t flat-out call it a “hack” review. Gilbert definitely misunderstood Belcher, including on some issues where Belcher spoke very clearly. But I can see how Belcher laid the groundwork for some misunderstanding.
November 4th, 2009 | 1:58 pm | #7
Well, I am still on a self-imposed moratorium regarding criticism of Jim’s book. I said “a year” on God and Culture, but after Christmas I’m going to start the new year right by
going after Jim and his bookstaking out my concerns with Jim’s book and some of his perspectives and suggestions.But I don’t think that Jim laid out anything which might lead to misunderstand his point. he was sort of extra-circumspect, which is its own kind of thing.
November 4th, 2009 | 2:31 pm | #8
Frank,
My thought wasn’t that the “groundwork” is direct–it’s more circuitous.
In other words: In the course of trying too hard to figure out how the third way is actually a third way, some people are going to settle into misunderstandings.
November 5th, 2009 | 2:39 am | #9
I’m glad to hear this book is getting so much attention. I haven’t had a chance to read it, but have heard the author in interview, and as a person from the reformed view, who goes to a church that could be described as quasi-emergent, I was so happy to hear someone as intelligent and thoughtful as this author, write a book on such a timely and weighty subject. Infact, I was impressed enough by his interview that I recommended the book to my pastor based on my impressions from the interview alone. (I hope to read it, but first I have to complete Michael Horton’s Covenant and Eschatology Quadrilogy first.)
November 5th, 2009 | 11:42 am | #10
Amen
November 7th, 2009 | 9:26 pm | #11
[...] Frank Turk enters the discussion at First Things [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact